Pregnancy Loss History at First Parity and Selected Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
7-2016
Publication Title
Annals of Epidemiology
Keywords
Low birthweight, Miscarriage, Pregnancy loss, Preterm birth
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between pregnancy loss history and adverse pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: Pregnancy history was captured during a computer-assisted personal interview for 21,277 women surveyed in the National Survey of Family Growth (1995-2013). History of pregnancy loss (<20 weeks) at first parity was categorized in three ways: number of losses, maximum gestational age of loss(es), and recency of last pregnancy loss. We estimated risk ratios for a composite measure of selected adverse pregnancy outcomes (preterm, stillbirth, or low birthweight) at first parity and in any future pregnancy, separately, using predicted margins from adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: At first parity, compared with having no loss, having 3+ previous pregnancy losses (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) = 1.66 [95% CI = 1.13, 2.43]), a maximum gestational age of loss(es) at ≥10 weeks (aRR = 1.28 [1.04, 1.56]) or having experienced a loss 24+ months ago (aRR = 1.36 [1.10, 1.68]) were associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes. For future pregnancies, only having a history of 3+ previous pregnancy losses at first parity was associated with increased risks (aRR = 1.97 [1.08, 3.60]). CONCLUSION: Number, gestational age, and recency of pregnancy loss at first parity were associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes in U.S. women.
Recommended Citation
Ahrens, K.A., Rossen, L.M., & Branum, A.M. (2016). Pregnancy loss history at first parity and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Annals of Epidemiology, 26(7), 474-481.
Comments
Paper presentation: A preliminary version of this analysis was presented at the 27th annual meeting of the Society of Pediatric and Perinatal Epidemiologic Research (SPER) in Denver, Colorado, on June 15–17, 2015. Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published by Elsevier Inc.